Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

The one mastery we are adding specifically gold related in Utility is a mastery called "Pickpocket" that grants gold upon attacking an enemy champion. This will allow active supports a bit more gold while harassing their opponents, while also being useful for other character types that spec into deep into Utility.

I can see a lot of people dying for this mastery.

OMG WHY DID YOU THINK IT WAS GOOD IDEA TO GO THAT FAR UP IN THE LANE SONA WTF...

DUDE I WAS GETTING GOLD FOR MY PICKPOCKET MASTERY

Basically I can see it being a reason that supports put themselves in terrible positions.

so all those talks about new things is cool but when will the new masteries and all the changes that are being talked about are goin to come alive???? cuz its a litle mean to tease us durin all this time and let us suffer with out some deadline.

We won't be doing Synergy as there are a few issues with it that Morello talked about in a previous post. Most of the gold pressure reduction is going to be outside the mastery changes through a number of smaller adjustments (gold flow changes, items like the Sight Stone Xypherous revealed earlier etc).

The one mastery we are adding specifically gold related in Utility is a mastery called "Pickpocket" that grants gold upon attacking an enemy champion. This will allow active supports a bit more gold while harassing their opponents, while also being useful for other character types that spec into deep into Utility.

I'm pleased to see some sort of effort to increase the 5th champion's income: a 5-player game with only 4 sources of early-game gold is problematic in that way. (I say this as someone who loves playing Support, but despite rather than because of the starvation.)

I think a Synergy mechanic is an elegant solution in that it reduces the duo-laning penalty to manageable levels and gives both duo laners a stake in the success of the lane. (Success is not always a matter of kills; sometimes it's a matter of pressure that allows your side more freedom to farm.) As I've said, I don't think a Mastery would be the way to go with such an effect; it would be better as a basic mechanic or an item passive.

I'd love to see any mechanic, or set of mechanics, that give the 5th champion a meaningful amount of gold and allow for deviations from 1+1+2+J that aren't mercilessly punished by the economy.

I like that these issues are on Riot's agenda, and I look forward to seeing how things develop. Riot seems to be taking it slow, but I can understand why they'd want to do that.

As for Surge - we definitely missed the mark. Originally Surge was envisioned as a team oriented spell, something similar to old Rally. After a few iterations it had to be toned down, but we didn't want to make the user feel worse for taking it. As it stands now, it does come down to which spell is going to give you more damage - Ignite or Surge. In an overwhelming majority of cases, Ignite will actually give you more mileage even if Surge sounds better. This becomes especially true later in the game as Ignite ignores armor / magic resist. Surge was fun to cast, and had good synergy with a particular couple champions - but a majority of the time it was actually a trap. There were some fun aspects of it - turret pushing, clever edge case uses, and getting bigger, but it overall was a false choice.

Surge is NOT (read here: In no way) just a choice of which spell " which spell is going to give you more damage". People KNOW that ignite does more damage (actually not though?), they pick it for all the other reasons listed in the last 80 pages.

People had a choice, they could even take both if they wanted, but they had the ability to decide that for themselves, which fit their play-style better. How you can say with any sort of intellectual integrity "we want to increase the variety of viable summoner spells" and "we want to remove a couple of really interesting and unique summoner spells" is beyond me. Isn't it obvious that these two statements are contradictory?

didn't a red say something about a utility mastery that gave a small amount of gold based off the CS someone near you gets? This was a couple weeks ago.

Nah that was a player suggested thing called synergy. There was a big featured discussion about it somewhat recently. Reds seemed adamant about not using it. Both sides of the issue made good points though,

*link to thread*http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2750554

First, I'm glad to see Barrier coming into regular rotation as a summoner spell. It is a great spell and I see it stopping burst damage to save yourself and protecting tower hits to ensure a kill.
Second, are the Mastery trees ever going to have more than 1 option at the 21 point slot? I don't mean to give multiple super strong options for those that invest heavily, but maybe investing a point in a 21point skill disables the investment in any other 21point skill. It is a way to open up even more options for specialization and more incentive for other roles to invest in one tree versus another.